Report Expected To Stir Up Ill. School-Finance Debate

A task force studying inequities in the funding of Illinois schools
is expected next month to release a set of politically explosive
recommendations that observers say are sure to escalate the
finance-reform debate in a state with one of the largest gaps between
wealthy and poor school districts in the nation.

The dramatic spending differences in the Prairie State--where
per-pupil expenditures in 1989-90 ranged from $2,253 to $14,316--means
that the stakes are unusually high for districts at both ends of the
spectrum.

Closing the wide gulf would require a substantial and costly policy
shift--at an estimated cost of $2 billion in new state funds--by
lawmakers, who already face a lawsuit by 72 of the state's poorest
districts.

The state's Task Force on School Finance has been looking for a way
out of the legal and political minefield for 18 months. After periods
of inaction and disagreement, the panel plans to deliver its final
report in May.

The panel's legislative proposals, which include a plan to
"recapture'' local property-tax revenues from some of the state's
wealthiest districts, probably will not be able to win a spot on the
legislature's crowded agenda until 1993. But backers hope lawmakers and
state voters this year will consider and approve a constitutional
amendment strengthening the state's legal commitment to ensuring a fair
system of education for all children.

Although the recommendations continue to draw opposition as either
too timid or too bold, task-force leaders said that after months of
debate, it is time to take the issue to a wider audience.

"It has been tedious,'' said Senator Arthur L. Berman, the
co-chairman of the task force. "But we've discussed issues that I would
say have rarely, if ever, been discussed candidly in a public forum.
This probably should have been done 10 years ago.''

Guaranteeing 'Adequacy'

A key feature of the panel's final report would move away from its
earlier goal of an equity standard that would ensure that no district
spent more than one-and-a-half times as much per student as the poorest
district.

Instead, the task force plans to propose an "adequacy'' target that
would boost low-spending districts up to the level needed to provide a
good basic education. The most recent draft calls on the state to
guarantee $4,300 per student, with additional amounts based on regional
cost differences.

The package also tentatively includes a limit on the tax revenue
received by the wealthiest 1 percent of districts. Officials estimate
that the state would collect $71 million in local property taxes above
the cap and redistribute the funds to poor areas.

The plan also would set a minimum tax rate required to receive state
aid, which would increase the tax burden for wealthy districts, and
would restructure the tax rates districts are allowed to levy.

The panel has not yet put a price tag on its plan, but officials
expect about $2 billion in new state funding would be required. The
state income tax is the most likely source of the new funds, officials
added.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which is still being written,
would strengthen language in the 1970 state constitution that the
courts have held does not set a firm standard for school funding.

"Nothing requires the state constitutionally to do much, and,
therefore, equity and adequacy, over a period of time, have suffered
from the growing demands on the state budget and reliance on local
property taxes,'' Senator Berman said. He added that a change is needed
"to place the proper responsibility on the state for adequate school
funding.''

Gene Hoffman, a former legislator and the co-chairman of the task
force, said a vote this year on the constitutional change would provide
an early gauge of the depth of lawmakers' interest in the issue. The
amendment would have to win three-fifths majorities in both chambers
before being put before voters in November.

"We need to see if there's a commitment on the part of the
legislature to put that out there and then go to the people to change
the education article,'' he said. "If that's adopted, that then becomes
the impetus for the legislature to give serious consideration to the
recommendations of the task force.''

'Halfway Measures'

School-finance experts called the task force's changes substantial
and said the five-year plan would aid poor districts, even if it does
not create a strictly level playing field.

"There will be disagreement on whatever they do,'' said G. Alan
Hickrod, the director of the Center for the Study of Educational
Finance at Illinois State University. "You're talking about relative
variance. The disparity will be diminished, but not eliminated. That's
reasonable.''

Still, early responses suggest that the panel's recommendations face
an uphill fight.

"The task force is more interested in property-tax relief than it is
in equity,'' argued G. Alfred Hess Jr., the executive director of the
Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance, a coalition of civic
groups. "There are some good things to point to, but it is difficult to
get excited about halfway measures.''

Wealthy districts, on the other hand, are echoing complaints by
similar districts in other states by asking why they should have to
suffer so that low-wealth districts can improve.

The task force only narrowly approved the recapture provision, on a
14-to-12 vote, and the panel's leaders said it is quite possible that
the plank will not make the final report.

"It's going to be difficult to keep that in the program because it
is obvious there is no consensus on that issue, and we're only looking
at the top 1 percent,'' said Mr. Hoffman. "If that's going to be an
albatross around the program's neck, there's no sense losing a
$2-billion bill over something like that.''

Vol. 11, Issue 31, Page 25

Published in Print: April 22, 1992, as Report Expected To Stir Up Ill. School-Finance Debate

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.